Without normal married men, there is no welfare state.

If the marriage rate for normal couples was the same as the rate for homosexual couples (about 5% of that population), there would simply not be enough tax revenue at any level to fund the massive apparatus of federal, state and local programs.  The two main sources of net personal revenue are married men with SAHMs and “power couples” earning 75k+ each.

It would behoove all the gay marriage boosters to think the math of making marriage have cooties through a bit more.  Probably not going to happen though.  Everywhere that gay marriage is legalized country-wide, the heterosexual marriage rates take a dive.  No matter what people assert in a survey or on facebook memes, they do think marriage gets gay cooties on it if gay marriage is made national.

And the income earned by people cohabiting or living in civil unions is nowhere as high as what married households bring in.  It turns out that it’s not just a piece of paper and it’s also not something that can be between else but a man and a woman.

Funny how that works.  Natural, normal marriage is what you have to have in order to support a robust welfare state.  Without it, you can’t fund much of anything.


Repost:There are more news headlines about gay marriage than gay marriages

This is according to the American Community Survey, which can’t be considered a conservative bastion by anyone anywhere.  Even with massive incentives to round up or estimate high, the ACS could only find about 500k gay and lesbian “marriages” in the United States.  The actual number of legal marriages or civil unions is around 200k, or about 4k per state for all 50 states.  The number with children is even fewer, around 100k, even though the ACS does “round up” here for all practical purposes by not separating out children acquired during the union from children brought along via a previous (heterosexual) relationship.  Even with that maximization tactic, “gaymarried with kids” is a pathetically infinitesimal number of couples.  Because gays are not even 2% of the general population.

Gay people don’t want to marry.  They are, for all statistical purposes, uninterested in being married to anyone and they are certainly not interested in lifelong monogamous marriage, as evidenced by cases in Texas where gays were whining that they took their marriages so seriously that Texas needed to let them have gay divorces.  Texas in at least one case argued that they could have an annulment rather than a divorce or stay gaymarried and work it out.  Somehow this proved Texas was a bastion of homophobia.  Funny how that works.

Surveys of gays repeatedly show that they want to cohabit or identify as married at a maximum ceiling of about 20%, with half that being more typical, and that is not necessarily monogamous (although such surveys tend to not ask about that, as it is inconvenient to the advocacy for gay marriage that gays aren’t serious about that whole “two people in wuv, just of the same sex” thing).  Gays are in fact different in their desires.  They don’t want lifelong monogamous unions with kids.  They don’t even want monogamous unions.  And they definitely don’t want kids harshing their game.

You have to consider that 100k figure in light of the total number of gays, which, being generous, tops out around 9 million in the United States.  200k gay people out of 9 million is… a statistical rounding error.  Now here is where gay marriage advocates want to jump in with some other country’s gay marriage rates, but it’s the same everywhere else, including places that have had gay marriage in place for nearly a generation.  About 5% of the civil marriages is the ceiling, not the floor when it comes to gaymarriage.  And that is initially, when the pent-up demand from narcissistic gay Boomers and Silents is flowing.  Once they’ve checked that box of approval, the rates drop to more like 2-3% of the civil marriages.

That’s the math we’re really dealing with here.  A trivial, pathetically small number of mostly Boomer and Silent gays who require official civil recognition of their sexual preferences because they remain the Me Generation.  The reality that gays donwanna marry is why it serves as such an ingenious proxy for status wars.  If gays really wanted to marry, the propaganda wouldn’t be so intense and abrasive.  It wouldn’t need to be.  That is the real difference between it and interracial marriage.  Laws were passed against interracial marriage because people were marrying and having kids together within wedlock interracially.  There were no laws passed against gay marriage because nobody was doing it and gays can’t have children together.

ETA 6/29/2015: I recently received a comment on this post, but it’s in moderation because the person didn’t read the blog post.  I think I’ll move comments back to moderation going forward if you don’t show signs of having read the post before commenting.  This blog is not required reading, but I see no reason to let comments through, even polite ones, that are just excuses to soapbox the usual polemic about love and rainbows instead of engaging with the actual blog post.

The value of siblings

Parents can’t pull fast ones on the kids, preserves family history more coherently, lowers risk of incestuous parent-child emotions developing.

Part of the horror of modern narcissism is the way in which parents cheat their child or “perfect two” children out of access to a continuous family history and further leave them vulnerable to emotional manipulations that are much harder to do when all the kids can compare notes.  You can run into problems with ten or fifteen siblings, but human history isn’t average people having that many kids as the normal family size.

I hope to explore this more in written form, one of the downsides of notebooking it in blog format.  Siblings are important because when the parents are outnumbered, they kind of need to communicate to the children that there are other people who care about them and can take care of them too.  The benefits accrue just having three kids instead of two, but are probably sweetest of spot at 4-6 kids.  After that, the sheer numbers issue becomes a massive problem if the kids aren’t raised factory-style with lots of other adults around.  It’s easy to get paranoid and make the child or children believe there’s nothing outside the nuclear family unit when there’s only one or two kids.  It’s harder to be anti-social and atomistic in relation to one’s local community when you have to do a name-check to make sure all the kids are rounded up.

Anyway siblings are valuable enough that society should be ordered for women to be able to have three or more children without it being a heavily politicized, rare choice.

More on pioneer and settler greed

Something that is always left out of the portrayal of pioneers and settlers as secular saints is how rapacious they were.  FDR’s administration had to intervene during the Depression because whites only a generation or so removed from pioneers were so careless with forest harvesting that they were creating massive hazards and epic forest fires.  There was also the poisoning of water supplies for gold mining, there was the overfishing and rapacious hunting.  The ecological types arose in response to the fairly astonishing way in which (white) Americans were scooping up resources and hollowing out land with no particular thought to keeping it going for some future beyond the next few harvest seasons.

And the pioneers themselves worked hundreds of acres alone or nearly so with the aid of technology so they could have more money.  Wall Streeters putting up 100 hour weeks are working extremely hard, but I don’t see reactionary conservatives jumping up to explain how their hard work means they earned everything they have and that we should all look to them as role models for how to really live the Christian life.

Note, I’m not saying the pioneers and the first couple generations following didn’t work very hard.  I’m saying they chased them dollahs until they hollahed and whatever that is, it’s not saintly.  There’s this strain in American conservatism of slaving really hard for any extra profits and I think you have to consider the socialist and communism infiltration in that light.  There was a competing strain that did not win out of using the technology to work only enough to be “comfortable”, a sort of proto-distributism, and it’s very interesting to see it rise up alongside the “gotta get ’em all” mentality of the settlers and their children and even some of their grandchildren.

I have to throw in that “pioneer” and “settler” are terms along a continuum.  Pioneers and settlers were homesteading into the 1950s (Alaska) and there were still what moderns would consider “real Ingalls-style pioneers” as late as the 1920s in parts of the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest.

The merits of properly liberal education.

Define it and explain why it’s important  and why it got tied to a career, it is certainly not because it proves you can show up reliably for 4 years.

A properly liberal education is important and it is beyond my tired self today to explain how it got tied to a career and college attendance (the oddly common view among conservatives that “college proves you can show up for four years” is not why).  So I will link to a not-great essay advocating for basic universal income but lamenting the lack of status currently attached to the life of the mind.

The essay isn’t perfect, but it touches well-enough on some of the relevant aspects of liberal education to be worth saving the link so, so that’s what I am doing for future reference.  Read it and let me know what you think of the approach that author takes.


Don’t sex cult the marriage bed.

This doesn’t mean avoid married sex, obviously, but there is a strain in Americans and of late conservatives the last generation or so of sex culting the marriage bed.  Christians are prone to this subverted gnosticism, prizing the intimacy of the marriage bed in too earthy and incontinent a fashion, denying that marriage is not really about having lifelong tingles.

The Puritans struggled mightily with seeking balance in this matter, but modern conservative Christians into the whole cult of “freaky sex but we’re married ooooo edgy” can’t even understand the problem.  Some boast of their inability to conduct themselves appropriately in public settings as a sign that their marriage is well ordered.  This could not be further from the truth.

Focusing on marital intimacy to the point that one is spending hours per day in figure maintenance hardly seems a good place for Christian wives to place their excess energies.  Call Trim Healthy idolatry, if you will.  At the very least, it leads to massive misinformation being passed from woman to woman about female health and bodily changes due to time and fertility.  It goes by many different names, but 40 days, six weeks postpartum, a long month, and so forth are quite universal and cross-cultural.  One to three months is the traditional range of “hands off” postpartum, and this is simply not being passed along any more to new wives by experienced married women.  It’s for the good of both husband and wife, to help them stay grounded in the fact that sex isn’t primarily about their mutual gratification, but a vehicle for welcoming new life into the world.

Whenever a subculture kicks this idea to the curb, it doesn’t lead to stronger marriages or healthier wives and children.  In several regional American subcultures prior to birth control and legal abortion, it was not at all unusual for women to resume relations at a couple of weeks postpartum.  This hardly made those marriages stronger and it sure didn’t help the infant and maternal mortality numbers.  And it didn’t matter that plenty of those women wanted to resume and weren’t necessarily being pressured.  It’s not about the immediate wants of the individual.

When Christians sex cult the marriage bed and define it firstly in terms of gratification, they degrade marriage rather than cultivate or enrich it.

It can also lead to unhealthy and improperly ordered parent-child stuff.  I want to put in more about this topic, it’s a big honking problem with far reaching consequences and severe damage to healthy, God-centered sexuality for girls and guys, but I’m pretty tuckered out, so I’ll just have to call this notes enough for now.